So transexuality is not "gender-equal". It is a one-sided affair. Feminists and liberal-lefts argue from the position that "white-males" have all the innate privilege and power in life. But why then would so many males want to be or become female, rather than female become male? Could it be, that liberal-leftist-feminists have it all wrong? And that women actually have the innate privilege and power in life? And that is one of the core and fundamental reasons why a male would want to pretend to be, to be, or to "become" a woman? Wouldn't that be the easier and simpler explanation as to why a male would want to "cash-in", if he could, gain access to, female-privilege.

In fact it's not talked about at all. Why not? What is female privilege?

In terms of social-cultural-political-privileges-power, it makes sense for one group to want to tap into the privileges of another group. It's mostly male-to-female, not female-to-male. Women, believe it or not, are not "fighting for their rights" to be garbage-women and coal miners. Women are not "fighting for the right" for super-models to be NFL linebackers.

So, with proper context, it makes sense why males would act faggy, act queer, act like girls. As I see it, the Modern world is all about 'Victim' status. If you're a victim then you are morally righteous, good, and deserve protection. You deserve attention and nurturing by the state. You deserve free health care, paid by the taxpayers. This is all false, of course. It's the opposite of reality. Just because you're a victim, doesn't you entitle you to a god-damned thing. That's my position. And that puts me on the "Conservative-Right", although I would consider myself more of a centrist.

I think your article is saying a large majority of fauxsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are M-F, but only a smaller majority (2 or 3:1) of fauxsexuals in general are M-F.Still, it is interesting.Fauxsexualism is in all likelihood produced by a convergence of genetic and environmental factors beginning in the womb, like almost all behavior and psychology, and as I stated earlier, (part of) the reason why some people become fauxsexuals may be because they think the opposite sex has more privileges, or is superior.And if more men want to (fully) 'transition' to women, that probably is just yet another manifestation of female privilege/supremacism in society.

And another factor is probably attention.I met a M-F fauxsexual who said, not the sole, but the main motivation for his 'transformation', or masquerade as I prefer to call it, was to stick it to society, overturn its order and cause chaos, because he's a troublemaker, and I'm sure he's not the only one, but of course his micronarrative isn't going to be published in the progressive MSM, because it doesn't fit their macronarrative.

Gloominary wrote:And another factor is probably attention.I met a M-F fauxsexual who said, not the sole, but the main motivation for his 'transformation', or masquerade as I prefer to call it, was to stick it to society, overturn its order and cause chaos, because he's a troublemaker, and I'm sure he's not the only one, but of course his micronarrative isn't going to be published in the progressive MSM, because it doesn't fit their macronarrative.

That could very well be the core motivation of faux-sexuality, a method of 'feminine' revenge.

Of course there are many other factors. The most obvious factor I can think of, is that males want a 'piece' of female-privilege. But females do NOT really want a piece of "male-privilege". Male-privilege is fake. And this factor explains why far more males want to be female, than female want to be male. It also easily explains why a lot more black people want to be white, than white people want to be black. It's about moving 'up' in (social)-status, privilege, protection. For example, "don't hit women". If women are automatically immune and protected from physical violence, then it's obvious the instant benefit that a faux-sexual would have in male-to-female transition.

By being and acting female, the male, in a way, tricks the social-order into gaining aspects of that innate female-protection. Never hit a woman? What about a he-she who was born male, but later self-castrated? Is s-he protected? Does the same social rule apply?

The main thing about transexuality, and homosexuality too, is that most of these males are raised by a single-mother. Many were/are bullied excessively about being a "fag/gay/queer" as children, and is mentally scarred by such identities, eventually twisting and influencing the mind, dominating the mind. The child begins to believe that "Yes, maybe I am a faggot...?" Then there are many pathological developments/impairments from that point onward.

Another reason why there are more M-F fauxs than F-M and far more M-F visibility is because, as has been said more than a few times on this forum, the elite want to feminize man more than they do masculinize woman, because women tend to be easier to control.

Of course there are many other factors. The most obvious factor I can think of, is that males want a 'piece' of female-privilege. But females do NOT really want a piece of "male-privilege". Male-privilege is fake. And this factor explains why far more males want to be female, than female want to be male. It also easily explains why a lot more black people want to be white, than white people want to be black. It's about moving 'up' in (social)-status, privilege, protection. For example, "don't hit women". If women are automatically immune and protected from physical violence, then it's obvious the instant benefit that a faux-sexual would have in male-to-female transition.

By being and acting female, the male, in a way, tricks the social-order into gaining aspects of that innate female-protection. Never hit a woman? What about a he-she who was born male, but later self-castrated? Is s-he protected? Does the same social rule apply?

Agreed, in the 21st century at least, women are the more privileged class than men, and I'm sure that has a bearing on why there's more M-Fs than M-Fs.Of course like you say it's multifactorial, this phenomenon doesn't have a single cause.

The main thing about transexuality, and homosexuality too, is that most of these males are raised by a single-mother. Many were/are bullied excessively about being a "fag/gay/queer" as children, and is mentally scarred by such identities, eventually twisting and influencing the mind, dominating the mind. The child begins to believe that "Yes, maybe I am a faggot...?" Then there are many pathological developments/impairments from that point onward.

Right, while I'm not denying the possibility of genetic factors and happenings in the womb, of course there are psychosocial factors too, like the ones you and I have been mentioning.Of course the progressives don't want to acknowledge the role family breakdown is playing in sexuality, because that would make them feel responsible, which's the very last thing they want to feel.

Psychologist Graciela Balestra, who works closely with the transgender community, says it's an especially vulnerable population."Transgender people have an average life expectancy of about 30 to 32 years," Balestra says. "They don't live any longer; I think that statistic alone says so much."Balestra says that they are often kicked out of their homes as teenagers and don't complete school, and that some use risky homemade remedies to change their bodies, when hormones and surgeries aren't available.According to a government study, more than 95 percent of transgender people turn to prostitution to support themselves. Balestra says the new ID cards are helping people access other jobs.

Fauxgenders are also many times more likely to commit suicide than the gen pop.

“In looking at the percentages reporting a lifetime attempt within various subgroups of the overall sample, we repeatedly found “lows” in the range of 30 to 40 percent, while the “highs” exceeded 50 or even 60 percent.”

Of course progressives are going to blame their dramatically high suicide rate and reduced life expectancy solely on discrimination, but lesbians, gays and bisexuals face comparable levels of discrimination, yet their life expectancy is only several years lower than the gen pop, not several decades.What else might be contributing to it?Perhaps it's because deep down they know they're not what they feign to be, and can never become, for all the reasons covered in this thread, and many more, nor does society owe it to them to treat them as such.How could a mental condition that reduces your life expectancy by 50 years not be classified as a mental illness?And there's no proof this mental illness is solely genetic, in all likelihood it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors, so why in the hell is this illness, which more than halves a persons life expectancy, being promoted to children, who may develop it when they otherwise wouldn't've, like it's some wonderful blessing?No it's not, it's a curse, and if anything it ought to be considered child abuse to confuse children about their sex.

Another point I wanted to make: the brain and mind are in all likelihood not two separate things, but two different ways of apprehending and thinking about the same thing, so you can't have a mental sex different from your brain sex, so if scientists are looking at your brain sex, and they're telling you it mostly matches your bodily sex, or it's androgynous, your mental sex probably mostly matches your bodily sex too, or it's androgynous, and you're probably (sub)consciously feigning all or many opposite sex traits you think, or say you think you have.The mind in all likelihood isn't separate from the brain, nor is it a by-product of the brain, it is the brain, the mind is the brain perceiving itself by looking inwardly, whereas the brain is the mind perceiving itself by looking outwardly, so for every (sexual) change that happens in the mind, whether this change is produced by genes, and/or long, or short term environmental, social and/or self-conditioning, there is an equal and corresponding change in the brain.

It’s unlikely that gender identity has such a straightforward biological explanation, however, and some studies have identified features of the transgender brain that appear closer to the natal sex, casting doubt on the developmental mismatch hypothesis.

Gloominary wrote:Another point I wanted to make: the brain and mind are in all likelihood not two separate things, but two different ways of apprehending and thinking about the same thing, so you can't have a mental sex different from your brain sex, so if scientists are looking at your brain sex, and they're telling you it mostly matches your bodily sex, or it's androgynous, your mental sex probably mostly matches your bodily sex too, or it's androgynous, and you're probably (sub)consciously feigning all or many opposite sex traits you think, or say you think you have.

But again what they specifically found was that transpeople had brains that looked like the brains of the sex they thought they were, not the brain of their genitals. This is preop and prehormone.

Trannies:1) Promote a dysfunctional distribution of societal roles, which lowers the quality of the group (men are better at doing man things than female-to-male trannies, and women are better at doing woman things than male-to-female trannies). This is just a fact and not arguable. 2) Take up a disproportionately large portion of political thought-space relative to their percentage in the population, which is very low. Just look at what has been the most popular thread in this subforum lately. There's only a limited amount of time and energy to dedicate to things, trannies aren't worth it.

Just by these 2 facts alone it can be easily determined that the costs trannies impose easily outweigh the benefits and therefore it is more profitable for any group that values health and sanity to physically remove trannies.

They are socially useless, not being man enough for production, but lending themselves to the modern freedoms of women. They can only grow in such a modern environment. In previous times, they wouldn't be able to handle and maintain the labor nor would they have a part in the home making, reproduction, raising the family.. Even today, they exploit the women's freedom and try to politically advance themselves with it through fashion, the worse the symptom the greater the victim mentality..when you see them rise in numbers, the environmental conditions are getting bad.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:According to Carleas, a child pretending to be an alligator, is an alligator and should be kept in a swamp in a zoo. Likewise, a child pretending to be a criminal, ought to be thrown in jail. All moderns are what they say they are. And if you don't participate in the charades, if you don't encourage this social malady, then you are ill yourself.

How about a criminal pretending to be innocent? "I may have robbed that bank, but I hereby identify as someone who didn't!"

Gloominary wrote:Agreed, in the 21st century at least, women are the more privileged class than men, and I'm sure that has a bearing on why there's more M-Fs than M-Fs.Of course like you say it's multifactorial, this phenomenon doesn't have a single cause.

On the contrary, I believe women have always been the 'privileged' gender, maybe from the beginning of time. Females/Children are the protected-class. Males are the ones who are obligated to fight and die in wars. If one group invades and defeats another group, then the females are usually taken as slaves. The males are often killed, sometimes the children (boys) are too, if they show Masculine disobedience and defiance against the invaders.

Gloominary wrote:Right, while I'm not denying the possibility of genetic factors and happenings in the womb, of course there are psychosocial factors too, like the ones you and I have been mentioning.Of course the progressives don't want to acknowledge the role family breakdown is playing in sexuality, because that would make them feel responsible, which's the very last thing they want to feel.

The breakdown of the Western family definitely has a large factor in these things. As mentioned, faux-sexuals seem to come from single-mother "homes".

Gloominary wrote:Of course progressives are going to blame their dramatically high suicide rate and reduced life expectancy solely on discrimination, but lesbians, gays and bisexuals face comparable levels of discrimination, yet their life expectancy is only several years lower than the gen pop, not several decades.What else might be contributing to it?Perhaps it's because deep down they know they're not what they feign to be, and can never become, for all the reasons covered in this thread, and many more, nor does society owe it to them to treat them as such.How could a mental condition that reduces your life expectancy by 50 years not be classified as a mental illness?And there's no proof this mental illness is solely genetic, in all likelihood it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors, so why in the hell is this illness, which more than halves a persons life expectancy, being promoted to children, who may develop it when they otherwise wouldn't've, like it's some wonderful blessing?No it's not, it's a curse, and if anything it ought to be considered child abuse to confuse children about their sex.

I came to the conclusion, long ago, that liberal-leftists, and even moderates, don't really want to hear about "the truth" or really investigate the causes of these phenomenons. The truth doesn't really matter. It's more about appearances and SJW crusading. It's about quick-fixes to moral superiority. It's about feeling holier-than-thou. For example, liberal-leftists tend to support "gay rights" and faux-sexuality, not out of any noble inclination, but often to give the finger to conservative-rightists. It's about annoying and harassing the supposed Enemy. It's about playing people against each-other.

Also the liberal-left are driven by strong feelings of Guilt. Liberal-leftists believe if society in general disallows and/or disapproves of Faux-sexuality, and other Queer behaviors, then we "must be headed toward Fascism" and whomever expresses negativity toward Faux-sexuality is "Hitler-reincarnate, Nazis".

These are how the "discourses" play-out anyway. No middle-ground, it's black & white only. You either support and play into Faux-sexuality (as Carleas does) OR you're an evil-nazi-Hitler supporter. One or the other, but not neither.

Haven't kept up with this thread, but I want pass along something that might be of interest: Slate Star Codex has a guest post with a report produced by an "adversarial collaboration" (i.e. written by people who disagree on the question) discussing gender transitioning for children. The point of the report isn't to come to a conclusion, but to collect the evidence and summarize the points of agreement between two authors who disagree about what we should conclude from them. It's a good rundown of the evidence.